“When evaluating whether settlements purporting to waive or release claims pursuant to the FLSA may be enforced, courts look to evidence in the records before them to see whether the settlements resolved ‘bona fide disputes’ regarding the number of allegedly unpaid hours or compensation due at the time that payment was received. By contrast, here, the only document or evidence before the Court is the language of the Agreement itself, which Defendants contend clearly resolved a bona fide dispute because it includes broad, boilerplate language stating that [Plaintiff] has released all claims ‘arising under federal, state and local statutory or common law…’ and because [Plaintiff] acknowledged that ‘he is entitled to receive no other payments, benefits, or compensation’ from Defendants besides his $500 settlement . . . . Here, not only do Defendants allege no facts from which the Court could conclude that a bona fide dispute arose, was negotiated, and eventually was resolved regarding the number of hours [Plaintiff] worked or the pay he received, Defendants even admit that the Agreement in question is simply offered to workers who leave Southern Arch to shield the company from liability. As such, the Court cannot conclude based on the record before it that the Agreement signed by [Plaintiff] resolved a bona fide dispute regarding any FLSA claim that [Plaintiff] may bring, and as such, the Court will not dismiss [Plaintiff’s] claims in this matter.” 2016 WL 3617671, at *5 (footnotes omitted).

Lopez v. Southern Arch, LLC, No. 15-6302, 2016 WL 3617671 (E.D. La. July 6, 2016).